Jeffers v. Screen Extras Guild

Decision Date05 November 1951
Citation107 Cal.App.2d 253,237 P.2d 51
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesJEFFERS v. SCREEN EXTRAS GUILD, Inc., et al. Civ. 18352.

Perry Bertram, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Gilbert, Nissen & Irvin, Robert W. Gilbert, Los Angeles, for respondents.

DRAPEAU, Justice.

Demurrer was sustained to plaintiff's section amended complaint for libel, with leave to amend. Failing to file another amended complaint in time, upon motion of defendants, an order was made dismissing the action under the provisions of Subdivision 3 of Section 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff appeals from the order dismissing the action; from the order sustaining the demurrer; and from an order subsequently made, denying his motion under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473 to vacate and set aside the order of dismissal.

Some considerable portion of the briefs has been devoted to the two grounds of appeal last stated. These may be summarily disposed of by stating: First, that an order sustaining or overruling a demurrer, without further action by the court, is not appealable. Harmon v. De Turk, 176 Cal. 758, 169 P. 680; Wood, Curtis & Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 152 Cal. 344, 92 P. 868. Secondly, while the order denying relief under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473 is appealable, Phelan v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 363, 217 P.2d 951, it is not necessary to pass upon it because the appeal from the order of dismissal must be sustained.

This Court is required to determine whether, as a matter of law, the complaint states a cause of action. The order of dismissal entered on the minutes of the court was a final judgment from which an appeal could be taken. Colby v. Pierce, 15 Cal.App.2d 723, 59 P.2d 1046. And, failing to amend the complaint, plaintiff in effect refused to amend. Saddlemire v. Stockton Savings & Loan Soc., 144 Cal. 650, 79 P. 381; Huffaker v. Decker, 77 Cal.App.2d 383, 175 P.2d 254; Litch v. Kerns, 8 Cal.App. 747, 97 P. 897; 21 Cal.Jur. 125.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff was libeled by statements in a publication of defendants' called 'News Letters to Members.'

Asserted libelous statements in the article are as follows:

'Mike Jeffers, demogogue and would-be dictator, was forced out into the open last week as the leader of the small clique that seeks to destroy Screen Extras Guild. Jeffers personally solicited signatures on an anti-Guild petition and he personally handed out an unsigned, mimeographed, lying attack on the officers and directors of the Guild. The Screen Extras Guild accepts Jeffers' challenge and will continue to expose him for what he is--a would-be dictator who seeks to further his own selfish ambitions at the expense of the extra players; a discredited leader of a discredited union which permitted open shop for extra players and started to flood the extras' ranks with non-union newcomers. That is Jeffers.

'Jeffers yells his head off each time one of his underhanded schemes is exposed as a plot by leaders of the defunct SPU to destroy our American Federation of Labor Guild of extra players. Of course he doesn't like it. He would prefer that the extras would forget all about the terrible things he did to the extras. Jeffers would like the extra players to forget that he was part of the Commie-influenced Conference of Studio Unions which pulled two disastrous jurisdictional strikes in 1945 and 1946. Jeffers would like you to forget that he never did one thing for the good of the extra players, that all he did was to bring about open shop. But the extra players are not going to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Maidman v. Jewish Publications, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • September 16, 1960
    ...Schomberg v. Walker, 132 Cal. 224, 64 P. 290; MacLeod v. Tribune Publishing Co., 52 Cal.2d 536, 343 P.2d 36; Jeffers v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 107 Cal.App.2d 253, 237 P.2d 51; Dethlefsen v. Stull, 86 Cal.App.2d 499, 195 P.2d The editorial in question could not have any effect other than......
  • Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 1, 1985
    ...sustaining a demurrer with leave to amend is not a final judgment and therefore not itself appealable. (Jeffers v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc. (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 253, 254, 237 P.2d 51.) If a plaintiff fails or refuses to amend the complaint, the court will enter a judgment of dismissal fro......
  • Lagiss v. Contra Costa County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 6, 1963
    ...221, 223, 20 Cal.Rptr. 598; Carley v. City of Santa Rosa, 154 Cal.App.2d 214, 214-215, 315 P.2d 905; Jeffers v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 107 Cal.App.2d 253, 254, 237 P.2d 51.) 4 Art. XI, § 18, in part provides: 'No county, city, town, township, board of education, or school district, shal......
  • Timperley v. Chase Collection Service
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 1969
    ...the demurrer. The order sustaining the demurrer is a preliminary order that is not separately appealable. (Jeffers v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 107 Cal.App.2d 253, 254, 237 P.2d 51.) Respondents contend at the outset that the sufficiency of the complaint is not before us on this appeal and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT